Federalist Society Meeting and International Law Panels

by Roger Alford

Beginning today the Federalist Society is holding its 25th annual meeting. Details about the program are available here. The theme this year is American Exceptionalism. Almost 40 percent of the panels highlight some aspect of international relations, and there appears to be some ideological balance on each panel. If any of our readers happen to be attending please do share about the international law discussion. These panels look like the best ones for our discipline:

Thursday, November 15

Showcase Panel I: Beacon of Freedom: Does America Have a Special Mission?

Mr. Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Charles Fried, Harvard Law School
Prof. Gordon S. Wood, Brown University
Moderator: Hon. Harvie Wilkinson, III, U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit

Friday, November 16

Labor: The Labor Movement, NGOs, International Labor Standards and American Values

Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law
Mr. Adam B. Greene, U.S. Council for International Business
Ms. Deborah Greenfield, Associate General Counsel, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
Moderator: Hon. David B. Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Administrative Law: Immigration, Amnesty, and the Rule of Law

Dean T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. John Baker, Louisiana State University
Prof. Kris W. Kobach, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Prof. Gerald L. Newman, Harvard Law School
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Showcase Panel II: Is America Different from Other Major Western Democracies?

Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. James Lindgren, Northwestern University School of Law
Mr. Bruce Stokes, National Journal
Prof. Graham K. Wilson, Boston University
Moderator: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC and Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law

Saturday, November 17

Showcase Panel III: The Constitution & American Exceptionalism: Citation of Foreign Law

Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Yale Law School
Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Prof. Vicki C. Jackson, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Hon. Janice Rogers Brown, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Intellectual Property: Intellectual Property: American Exceptionalism or International Harmonization?

Prof. Shubha Ghosh, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Washington University in St. Louis
Prof. Adam Mossoff, Michigan State University College of Law
Prof. Steven M. Tepp, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office
Moderator: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, U. S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Showcase Panel IV: American Exceptionalism, the War on Terror and the Rule of Law in the Islamic World

Prof. Jack L. Goldsmith, Harvard Law School
Prof. Neal K. Katyal, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Michael S. Paulsen, University of Saint Thomas School of Law
Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Baker & Hostetler
Prof. Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Moderator: Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Northwestern University School of Law and Chairman, The Federalist Society Board of Directors

http://opiniojuris.org/2007/11/15/federalist-society-meeting-and-international-law-panels/

2 Responses

  1. Over at Volokh, Jonathan Adler summarizes Nicholas Rozenkranz’s discussion of citation to foreign and international law. Details here.

  2. On Saturday’s final panel (War on Terror): I was greatly disappointed that Prof. Goldsmith was unable to attend.

    Prof. Paulsen argued of course that there is no such thing as International Law. Shouldn’t an originalist (even a sovereigntist originalist) admit that the U.S. Constitution puts ratified treaties squarely into the category of law (even part of the ‘supreme law’), and that, so long as a ratified treaty does not conflict with the Constitution or a subsequent federal statute, then it is in fact legally binding pursuant to the Constitution?

    Prof. Katyal was more effective than I anticipated. The attorney for Hamdan and former clerk for J. Breyer made some very good points, and one could certainly argue it was not an audience inclined to be favorable. He was a little shaky trying to defend the Court’s muddy Hamdan reasoning (of course, it was not exactly the holding he had requested, but close enough). One thoughtful question from the audience was whether the Court had applied a ‘Living Instrument’ approach to the Geneva Conventions.

    Again, Prof. Goldsmith was missed. His credibility has been earned the hard way.

    I passed by Prof. PainEquivalentToOrganFailureOrDeath on Friday, but I declined to attend his Thursday panel and so cannot elaborate on it.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.